Pregnancy dismissal claim survives employer identity dispute
A former employee's pregnancy-related unfair dismissal claim against Wales England Care Ltd was allowed to proceed after the tribunal identified the correct employer, dismissing claims against a dissolved company and a liquidated one.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant brought claims of automatic unfair dismissal (pregnancy), unfair dismissal, and pregnancy discrimination.
- The first respondent (MVRSS Group Ltd) was dissolved before the hearing, so the claim against it was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
- The second respondent (MVRSS Training Ltd) was in liquidation and was found not to be the claimant's employer.
- The third respondent (Wales England Care Ltd) was found to be the claimant's employer at all material times.
- The respondent's application for reconsideration was refused as it was made late and lacked merit.
Timeline
-
Claim presented against R3
Claim 1600909/2022 was presented against Wales England Care Ltd.
-
Claim presented against R1 and R2
Claim 1600874/2022 was treated as presented against MVRSS Group Ltd and MVRSS Training Ltd.
-
Claims served on all respondents
Both claims were served on all three respondents.
-
Claims re-served on R1 and R2
Claims were re-served on the dissolved company and the insolvency practitioner.
-
Peninsula instructed for R3
Peninsula wrote to the tribunal advising they represented R3 and filed a response.
-
Response accepted for R3
The response for R3 was accepted and claims listed for a preliminary hearing.
-
Preliminary hearing before Judge Harfield
Directions were made for a preliminary hearing to determine the claimant's employer.
-
Preliminary hearing before Judge Moore
The tribunal found R3 was the employer; R1 and R2 were dismissed from proceedings.
-
Written judgment sent
The written record of the judgment was sent to the parties.
-
First reconsideration application
The respondent applied for reconsideration, which was refused as out of time.
-
Second reconsideration application
The respondent repeated the application, which was refused on the merits.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide which of three related companies was the claimant's employer, and whether claims against a dissolved company and a company in liquidation could be heard.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed claims against the first respondent (dissolved) and second respondent (in liquidation), finding it had no jurisdiction over the dissolved company and that the second respondent was not the employer. It held that the third respondent, Wales England Care Ltd, was the employer at all material times.
- Claims against MVRSS Group Ltd (dissolved) dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
- Claims against MVRSS Training Ltd (in liquidation) dismissed as it was not the employer.
- Wales England Care Ltd confirmed as the employer; case to proceed to final hearing on the merits of the pregnancy discrimination and unfair dismissal claims.
Lessons & takeaways
- If you work for a group of companies, check which entity is your legal employer on your contract and payslips — this determines who to bring a claim against.
- A company being dissolved or in liquidation does not automatically mean you cannot bring a claim — but you must name the correct employer that still exists.
- Tribunals can hold preliminary hearings to sort out employer identity before the main case, saving time and costs.
- If you are unsure who your employer is, seek advice early — a lay representative or Citizens Advice can help clarify the position.
When the employer's identity is in dispute
This case shows how a preliminary hearing can resolve a fundamental issue before a full trial: who was the claimant's employer? The former employee brought claims of automatic unfair dismissal due to pregnancy, ordinary unfair dismissal, and pregnancy discrimination. But three different companies were named as respondents, and the correct employer was disputed.
The tribunal had to untangle a web of related companies. The first respondent had been dissolved, meaning there was no legal entity to sue. The second was in creditors' voluntary liquidation and was found not to have been the employer. The third, Wales England Care Ltd, was identified as the employer at all material times. Claims against the first two were dismissed, but the case against Wales England Care Ltd will now proceed to a final hearing.
What could have been done differently
The respondent's application for reconsideration was refused because it was made late and lacked merit. The tribunal noted that the director of all three companies had attended earlier hearings and had been told the correct procedure. The confusion over employer identity could have been avoided if the respondent had clarified the employment relationship from the outset.
Why this matters for similar claims
For employees in group companies, this case is a reminder to check your contract and payslips to identify your legal employer. For employers, it highlights the importance of being clear about which entity employs each worker, especially when companies are restructured or wound up. The case will now proceed to a final hearing where the substance of the pregnancy discrimination and unfair dismissal claims will be decided.
Similar cases
Pregnant chef dismissed after requesting time off for pregnancy-related illness
A chef was automatically unfairly dismissed when her employer fired her by message after she requested time off for pregnancy-related bleeding. The tribunal awarded £18,479 for unfair dismissal, discrimination, and unauthorised deductions.
Dismissed while pregnant: automatic unfair dismissal and ACAS uplift
A makeup specialist was automatically unfairly dismissed because of her pregnancy. The tribunal awarded over £40,000 including an ACAS code uplift and injury to feelings.
Managing Director with 21 years' service: tribunal decides which company was her employer
A preliminary hearing determined that a managing director who worked across four group companies was employed only by the first respondent. Claims against the other three were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Unfair dismissal claim dismissed as too late: the importance of the three-month deadline
A former employee's unfair dismissal claim against BUPA Care Homes was dismissed because she presented it nearly seven months after her dismissal, well beyond the three-month time limit. The tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for her to have brought the claim in time.